Iran Says It Will Never Scrap Nuke Program

Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman of Iran's powerful Supreme National Security Council today annouced that Iran will not scap its nuclear program.

TEHRAN, Iran Feb 2, 2005 — Iran will never scrap its nuclear program, and talks with Europeans are intended to protect the country's nuclear
achievements, not negotiate an end to them, an Iranian official said Wednesday.

What will this situation do for the ongoing "War on Terror"? News like this will not give George W and our allies much room to negotiate, I wonder
what the response will be? Will our next step be to invade Iran, looking for WMDS?

This is very interesting to say the least.....I always understood that Europe was trying to help secure a Plan for "all" to except (without nukes).
Guess the plan has changed, wonder what Bush~y gon'a think about this?

Read between the lines....said they'd never scrap their nuclear program...the word (weapons) was never mentioned. The spin is obviously to make it
sound like they said they'd never scrap their nuclear [weapon] plans....but that isn't what they said...

This is just more rhetoric to
eventually justify the inevitable military action. *sigh*

All the emphasis is on nookular weapons all the time but rarely any mention of the nuclear power programme.
There are always those that ask "why do they need nuclear power when they have all that oil? Well, why not. The oil is not going to last forever,
everybody knows that so why not look at other means of generation.

Hell, even Donald Bumsfelt worked for ABB (if I remember correctly) when they contracted with North Korea to supply/build nuclear power systems...but
never uttered a peep against the deal.

I trust to Iran more than to Americans. And I'm sure it'll be better to leave them or to help then to protect their nukes from terrorists than #ting
to everybody about their threats. Remember the Iraq.

All the emphasis is on nookular weapons all the time but rarely any mention of the nuclear power programme.
There are always those that ask "why do they need nuclear power when they have all that oil? Well, why not. The oil is not going to last forever,
everybody knows that so why not look at other means of generation

Oh don't get me wrong...I'm under no delusions, and realize that the reason they are so steadfastly pursuing nuclear power, is to also be able to
become a nuclear WEAPONS power... However, I wanted to point out how easy it is to plant such seeds as this article in the public subconscious....and
also how dangerous such planting can be... Iran has tried to obtain nuclear weapons technology so many times in the past it's amazing they don't
already have such a weapons program up and running to be honest....but I sure as hell am not happy about seeing the Euros help them on such a
path...

trust to Iran more than to Americans. And I'm sure it'll be better to leave them or to help then to protect their nukes from terrorists than
#ting to everybody about their threats. Remember the Iraq.

Really? You'd trust a state sponsoring terrorism (i.e. in it's support of numerous terrorist training camps and factions) to keep such weapons out
of the hands of terrorists? Sorry if I have to disagree on THAT note...

However, if they choose that path, the must deal with the reaction that the US will have.

The US will do everything in it's power (in an escalating manner) to prevent this, including sponsering a revolution in their own country, bombing
Iran, or outright invasion.

To be honest, I would rather Iran openly try to defy the US. The long term benefit of ousting the radicals that control that country outwieghs
allowing their continued control of tat country even if they publically comply to going non-nuclear.

iran doesnt need nuclear, " state terrorist sponser"(who knows for sure) mulla's NO NEED! HERES WHY: iran is most desert-ok somewhat desert in
saying that solar and wind is the way to go when sunshine 300+ plus days a year not to mention no worries of meltdowns and cheaper.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran would both retaliate and accelerate its drive to master nuclear technology if the United States or Israel attacked its
atomic facilities, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator warned on Sunday.

Hassan Rohani, secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, also told Reuters there was nothing the West could offer Tehran that
would persuade it to scrap a nuclear program which Washington fears may be used to make bombs.

Asked about a possible attack by the United States or Israel, which have both said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable, Rohani said: "If such
an attack (against Iran's atomic facilities) takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will definitely accelerate our activities to
complete our (nuclear) fuel cycle."

the tension rises in the middle east,
and iran is answering to the u.s. "threats".

Rumsfeld: Iran 'Years Away' from Nuclear Weapon

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran is believed to be years away from having a nuclear weapon and the United States has decided to use diplomacy, not
military action, in dealing with the issue, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Sunday.

"It's fairly clear from the public statements of the Iranians that, that they are on a path of seeking a nuclear weapon and don't have it at the
present time," Rumsfeld said in a taped interview with CNN's "Late Edition."

but then again,
if iranian nuclear weapons are "years away",
why are the u.s. threatening iran,
that they will attack any nuclear weapon fascilites?

Only the left of european politics, who think that Islam is all sweetness and light and you can negotiate with people who want to wipe out your way of
life, are being played for fools. The left hate America and Isreal cause they wont be victims and will stand up for themselves. Anyone with their head
screwed on properly in europe realises that the sole purpose for Iran having nuclear weapons is to use them against Isreal. To be honest I dont think
that any amount of sabre rattling and rhetoric will stop this from getting very nasty in the near future.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Really? You'd trust a state sponsoring terrorism (i.e. in it's support of numerous terrorist training camps and factions) to keep such weapons out
of the hands of terrorists?

why not? the US has been sponsoring terrorism for many years under the Monroe doctrine and wilsonian idealism. And it was the US that gave Saddam his
weapons in the first place. If Saddam then gives them to terrorists, who is to blame?

Remember, the US furnished the Mujahadeen with weapons with which to fight the soviets. Shouldn't some of the blame fall squarely on the US
administration, and past administrations?

To say a nation has a nuclear program is one thing. Third world nuclear power? Or unranium enrichment.

Iraqs Nuclear plant that was shut down had non weapons grade nuclear capability and was genuinely for power. Yet Israel sought through its spy agency
and what have you to eliminate the possible threat. That Nuclear plant was assisted through France which has had great nuclear success.

As far as Iran, before we all jump to conclusions, lets make sure that the intent is there before we run off going to war. And even if they did
create a weapon, like Ghadafi said, it would be suicide. It would be like dropping it on themselves. Nuclear program for what end?

Let us not be hypocrits and rush to judgement. North Korea on the other hand has decided to use theirs for weapons, and if I was north Korea, I would
be concerned. But I think we can all agree that there isnt a damm thing we can do about it now. They have them. Piss them off., they will launch one.
North Koreas lesson to the West is powerfull one.

It goes something like this. Who gives you the right to say yes or no.

North Korea as a culture has a right to persue what they want. We have a right to a deterent. Now that both sides have nuclear, I guess invasion is
out of the question which leads us back to diplomacy. Funny how that works.

I am not against North Korea nor am I anti US at all. But We as free people need to look at the issues with non bias. Korea went into the defensive
mode by Bush calling her an axis of evil. They too have serious internal issues and are fighting to survive. I am sure that this is one country that
will, through presenting equal power, will force a diplomatic solution which is something Iraq was not able to do. And to that end, I salute them.
Bullying is not the way to win the hearts of nations. They pulled a trump card out in the end and prevented an invasion, and probably saved American
and Korean Lives in the process. Let us hope they they are able to be responsible at the bargaining table.

What is wrong with wind power? Or hydroelectricity? Solar power cells? None of these things can produce weapons that I know of. Maybe you can make
a flying windmill that chops up everything in its path.

But if people were all about finding ways to power their country, there are dozens of other ways that arent so notorious as nuclear energy.

I would rather noone messed with nuclear energy honestly. Since we pioneered it, are the richest country and I hope have the best safety procedured,
we should be tasked on deciding what people can do with it.

And if you are interested in nuclear energy then submit your ideas to the US govt. Its better to work together then to work by yourself if as what
you say you want to "Provide power" to your country.

Sounds like they want the power to totally obliterate the world. Thats about it.

I wouldnt care less if I went to war with Iran. Weve had nuclear weapons for 50 years, I think if they just want to start now they should have a
little more respect for what we have done already and put lots of research into.

And besides their brains are inferior. They are religious fanatics. I grew out of religion when I was like 15 years old. Its like children's
stories. If they feel so strongly about Islam then their problems are alot worse then not being able to figure out how to be a world power.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.